Optimization of Dose Parameters to Patients Undergoing CT Scan Using Four Different CT Scanners with International Guidelines

Issahaku Shirazu; Y. B Mensah; Cyril Schandorf; S. Y. Mensah; Alfred Owusu

doi:10.32628/IJSRST162639

Authors

Issahaku Shirazu University of Cape Coast, School of Agriculture and Physical Sciences Faculty of Physical Sciences, Department of Physics, Cape coast, Ghana
Y. B Mensah University of Ghana Medical School, Department of Radiology, Korle-Bu Teaching Hospital, Accra Ghana
Cyril Schandorf Graduate School of Nuclear and Allied Sciences, University of Ghana, Legon, Ghana
S. Y. Mensah University of Cape Coast, School of Agriculture and Physical Sciences Faculty of Physical Sciences, Department of Physics, Cape coast, Ghana
Alfred Owusu University of Cape Coast, School of Agriculture and Physical Sciences Faculty of Physical Sciences, Department of Physics, Cape coast, Ghana

DOI:

https://doi.org//10.32628/IJSRST162639

Keywords:

Optimisation, Scanning Protocol, Computer Tomography, Doses Reference Level

Abstract

Although the use of CT in medical diagnosis delivers radiation doses to patients that are higher than those from other radiological procedures, lack of proper optimized protocols could be an additional source of increased dose in developing countries. The aims of this study is to determine the variations of doses to patients undergoing CT scan using four different CT scanners with different CT scanning protocols for the purposes of optimizations and to compare with other available international standard and guidelines. The method involve the use of patients scanning protocol and image data to estimate patient body regional doses with four common CT examinations. These were obtained from four CT units/hospitals in Ghana. A large variation of mean body regional doses among different CT scanners were observed for similar CT examinations. These variations largely originated from different CT scanning protocols used, with different CT scanner type. The measured CTDIVOL with GE Lightspeed VCT 64 scanner for head, hest, abdomen and pelvis were 7.7mGy, 12.5 mGy, 14.4 mGy, and 12.9 mGy, respectively. Similarly, Philip 16 scanner recorded 6.6mGy, 13.1mGy, 14.8mGy, and 14.5mGy respectively. Furthermore, Siemen Emotion 16 scanner recorded 5.9mGy, 14.2mGy, 16.8mGy and 12.0mGy respectively. While, Toshiba Aquilion one scanner had CTDIVOL value which varies as 7.2mGy, 13.4mGy, 15.2mGy and 13.5mGy respectively. In conclusion the values were mostly lower than the values of CTDI and DLP as reported in literature for EC, IAEA, ICRP, ACR and AAPM Guidelines.

References

European Commission. European guidelines on quality criteria for computed tomography EUR 16262 EN, Luxemburg. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 1999.
United Nations Scientific Committee on Effects of Radiation Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR). Sources and effects of ionizing radiation report to the general assembly. New York: United Nations; 2000.
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Protection of patients in diagnostic and intervention radiology, nuclear medicine and radiotherapy. Proceeding of International Conference, Malaga, Spain, 26-30 March 2001; Vienna.
International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). Managing patient dose in computed tomography annals of ICRP publication 87; 30(4). Oxford: Pergamon Press; 2000.
Hidajat N, Maurer J, Schroder RJ, et al. Relationships between physical dose quantities and patient dose in CT. Br J Radiol. 1999; 72:556-561.
Dr Henry Knipe and Dr Usman Bashir et al, CT dose index, UDM medical network, Radiopeadia.org
Hopper KD, Neumann JD, King SH, Kunselman AR. Radioprotection to the eye during CT scanning. Am J Neuroradiology. 2001; 22:1194-1198.
Hopper KD, King SH, Lobell ME, TenHave TR, Weaver JS. The breast: In-plane X-ray protection during diagnostic thoracic CT-shielding with bismuth garments. Radiology 1997; 205:853-858.
Geleijns J, Van Unnik JG, Zoetelief J, Zweers D, Broerse JJ. Comparison of two methods for assessing patient dose from computed tomography. Br J Radiol. 1994; 67:360-365.
Shrimpton PC, Jones DG, Hillier MC, et al. Survey of CT practice in the UK. Part 2: Dosimetric aspects. Chilton, NRPB-R249. London: HMSO; 1991
Thomas JEM, Tingey DRC. Radiation doses from computed tomography in Australia. Australian Radiation Laboratory Report, ARL/TR123; 1997.
Mayo JR, Hartman TE, Lee KS, Primack SL, Vedal S, Muller NL. CT of the chest: Minimal tube current required for good image quality with the least radiation dose. Am J Roentgenol. 1995; 164:603-607.